Central Information Commission
Shri Avtar Singh Mangat vs State Bank Of Patiala on 11 December, 2009
Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000166
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 11 December 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Avtar Singh Mangat S/o Shri S. Lal Singh, Vill - Katana Sahib, P.O. Kubey, Distt. - Ludhiana, Punjab.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of Patiala, Public Relation Department, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Vijay Kumar,
(ii) Shri Vineet
2. We took up this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was not present though he had called up to inform that he had received the notice only this morning and, therefore, was not in a position to attend the hearing. The Respondent was, however, present in the Patiala Studio of the NIC. The Appellant had sought details about the cancellation of transfer orders of the Award Staff and the VRS approved for Award Staff between 1 April 2006 to 30 September 2006. The CPIO had given an interim reply on 5 September 2008, promising him that he would follow up with the full information on receiving those from the concerned Department. It is not clear if he had forwarded that information at all.
3. Against this, he had filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 13 September 2008 but it is not clear if that Authority ever disposed of the appeal. Consequently, the Appellant has come before us.
4. The Respondent submitted that the desired information was about other staff members and, therefore, could not be disclosed. We do not agree with this view, since the information sought is purely administrative in nature and contains no commercial confidence or personal information of CIC/SM/A/2009/000166 any kind. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the details of the transfer orders of the Award Staff which had been cancelled during the period from 1 April 2006 to 30 September 2006 and the names of the Award Staff who had been granted VRS during this period along with the date of voluntary retirement of each of those employees.
5. We also direct the CPIO to explain in writing within 15 working days from the receipt of this order, as to why penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act should not be imposed on him for not providing the desired information within the stipulated time even after promising to do so. If we do not receive the explanation in time, we will proceed to impose maximum penalty envisaged under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. If the CPIO wants to be heard in person, he must state so in his explanation.
6. The case is thus disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/2009/000166